Allahabad High Court
SHIVNATHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petitioner lacks standing to contest the allotment and, on the merits, no violation of the Government Order is established, leading to dismissal of the petition.
Summary
The petitioner sought restoration of a fair‑price shop licence originally held by his deceased father, which had been cancelled and later reinstated by the High Court. While the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate initiated proceedings to allot the shop to the petitioner on inheritance grounds, the shop had already been allotted to another entity, leading to further litigation. An open Gram Panchayat meeting was held as directed by the Court, but instead of assessing the father’s reputation and goodwill, the meeting limited applications to women and allotted the shop to Respondent‑4, a relative of the then Pradhan. The petitioner challenged this allotment, arguing that Respondent‑4 shared a household with the Pradhan, violating a Government Order dated 17.08.2002, and contended he had standing to sue despite his wife being the directly aggrieved party. The Court found the petitioner lacked locus standi to raise his wife’s grievance, noted no substantive proof of a common household, and held that the Government Order was not violated; consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the fair‑price shop allotment when the grievance is primarily that of his wife.
- Whether Respondent‑4, being a nephew of the then Pradhan and allegedly sharing a household/kitchen, is disqualified from being allotted the shop under the Government Order dated 17.08.2002.
- Whether the open Gram Panchayat meeting complied with the Court’s earlier direction to consider the reputation and goodwill of the original dealer.
Subjects
- fair price shop licence
- inheritance
- allotment
- open meeting
- standing
- locus standi
- government order
- nepotism
- procedural compliance
- estoppel
Judgment
Reserved on 15.09.2026
Delivered on 23.09.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 60931 of 2017
Shivnath
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)
Bhagwan Dutt Pandey, Kamla singh, Vijay
Counsel for Petitioner(s) :
Shanker Singh
C.S.C., Baijant Kumar Mishra, Chandan Yadav,
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dipanshu Kushwaha, Juned Alam, Sanjay
Singh, Shiv Lal, Tariq Maqbool Khan
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Petitioner’s father was a fair price shop dealer. On basis of an
inquiry his licence was cancelled by an order dated 19.09.2013
passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tamkuhiraj and appeal thereof
was also dismissed by an order dated 21.09.2015.
2. Father of petitioner had challenged aforesaid orders before this
Court by filing Writ-C No. 61237 of 2015. During pendency of writ
petition petitioner’s father died and according to record, petitioner
was impleaded as legal heir. Though it appears that it was not taken
note of since when this writ petition was allowed vide order dated
2
Writ C No. 60931 of 2017
14.12.2016 it was directed that agreement of fair price shop of
petitioner therein, i.e., father of petitioner, be restored.
3. In pursuance of above order the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
asked petitioner to appear vide a communication dated 23.01.2017 at
this office so that proceedings for appointment of petitioner as a fair
price shop dealer on inheritance basis be initiated.
4. Meanwhile, during pendency of aforesaid writ petition, shop
was already allotted to another allottee, i.e., Kisan Sewa Sahkari
Samiti and being aggrieved, order passed by a Coordinate Bench
dated 14.12.2016 was challenged before a Division Bench of this
Court by way of filing Special Appeal Defective No. 126 of 2017,
however, it was dismissed vide an order dated 21.02.2017, being not
maintainable.
5. In pursuance of above referred communication a close door
meeting of Tehsil Level Committee was held on 28.03.2017 and fair
price shop was allotted to petitioner in terms of Government Order
dated 17.08.2002.
6. Aforesaid order was challenged by Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti,
by filing Writ-C No. 19060 of 2017 that shop could be allotted to
petitioner only on basis of open meeting of Gram Panchayat where
reputation and goodwill of original dealer ought to have been
considered. Accordingly, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has
allowed said writ petition vide an order dated 22.05.2017 whereby
allotment in favour of petitioner was cancelled and it was directed
that an open meeting be conducted to consider reputation and
goodwill of original dealer, i.e., father of petitioner.
3
Writ C No. 60931 of 2017
7. An open meeting of Gram Panchayat concerned was
conducted, however, instead to consider reputation and goodwill of
original dealer, i.e., father of petitioner, it was decided that since shop
was reserved for woman, therefore, applications were invited from
female candidates only. According to record, petitioner’s wife, Smt.
Usha Devi participated in open meeting. It also appears that
petitioner has not made any objection that open meeting be
conducted only for purpose of considering reputation and goodwill of
original dealer, i.e., father of petitioner.
8. In aforesaid open meeting dated 15.11.2017, Respondent-4,
Smt. Rinki Devi was appointed as a new dealer and accordingly
subsequent agreement was also entered after the proposal was
approved by Block Development Officer concerned.
9. Aforesaid impugned resolution dated 15.11.2017 and
recommendation order dated 18.11.2017 is challenged at behest of
petitioner before this Court by means of present writ petition.
Surprisingly, petitioner’s wife, who has participated in said open
meeting has not challenged aforesaid proposal and resolution despite
probably being most aggrieved. An objection that petitioner would
not be aggrieved by impugned orders is also an issue for
consideration in this writ petition.
10. Ms. Kamla Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that
challenge to allotment of fair price shop in favour of Respondent-4 is
mainly on ground that her husband is a nephew of the then Pradhan
and they have common household and common kitchen. She
therefore, submitted that it would be contrary to a Government Order
dated 17.08.2002. She further placed reliance on a judgment passed
4
Writ C No. 60931 of 2017
by a Division Behch of this Court in the case of Ram Murat and
others vs. Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh and others,
2006(5) ADJ 396 as well as another judgment passed by a Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Subhash vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2015(1) ADJ 113.
11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-
Respondents has supported impugned orders that it was verified that
Respondent-4 has a separate household and separate kitchen,
therefore, there was no violation of any Government order.
12. Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel appearing for contesting-
respondent has submitted that only petitioner’s wife could be
aggrieved by impugned resolution and recommendation, however,
she has not filed this writ petition. Petitioner is a person of bad
character and there are FIRs against him.
13. I have considered aforesaid submissions and perused the
material available on record.
14. A challenge at behest of petitioner’s father cancellation of his
fair price shop licence remained successful, when a Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.12.2016 set aside order of
cancellation and subsequently allotment was made in favour of
petitioner on inheritance basis, however, since it was on basis of a
close door meeting, therefore, a challenge at behest of subsequent
allottee before a Coordinate Bench of this Court remained successful
as Writ-C No. 19060 of 2017 was allowed vide order dated
22.05.2017, whereby allotment made in favour of petitioner was set
aside and a direction was passed to conduct an open meeting of Gram
Panchayat.
5
Writ C No. 60931 of 2017
15. According to record, it appears that instead to comply the order
passed by a Coordinate Bench the Gram Panchayat concerned
proceeded to conduct an open meeting to call applications for
allotment of fair price shop from female candidates only since the
shop in question was reserved for female. Admittedly, no objection
was taken at that stage by petitioner, rather petitioner’s wife filed an
application for consideration and she also participated in open
meeting, however, the allotment was made in favour of
Respondent-4. Therefore, a submission on behalf of petitioner that
the order dated 22.05.2017, whereby this Court has directed Gram
Panchayat to conduct an open meeting to assess the reputation and
goodwill of earlier dealer was not complied with, cannot be accepted
since petitioner and his wife has taken a conscious decision to
participate in open meeting and only when after her application was
rejected, petitioner cannot challenge that earlier order passed in his
favour by this Court was not complied with, rather he was estopped
to raise such submission.
16. In aforesaid circumstances, only issue for consideration before
this Court is, whether Respondent-4, being nephew of the then
Pradhan, could be appointed as a fair price dealer or not.
17. However, an issue that this writ petition is not filed by
petitioner’s wife, who has participated in open meeting, therefore, a
grievance of petitioner’s wife could not be raised by her husband,
i.e., petitioner herein, is also goes against petitioner’s case since
petitioner has no lis to challenge any grievance of her wife. Even
petitioner’s wife is not arrayed alongwith petitioner in this writ
petition. Therefore, the writ petition may not maintainable at behest
of petitioner.
6
Writ C No. 60931 of 2017
18. The Court takes note that this writ petition is pending since
2017, i.e., for last about 9 years and pleadings were also exchanged,
therefore, rival submissions are considered on merit also on last
issue. However, since there is a specific stand of State-Respondents
that Respondent-4 has separate household and separate kitchen,
therefore, bar mentioned in Government Order dated 17.08.2002
would not hit allotment of fair price shop in her favour and only on a
ground that in voter list address of contesting-respondent and then
Pradhan was same, would not be a sole ground to reject allotment of
shop in favour of Respondent-4. It was upto the petitioner to prove
alongwith material that Respondent-4 has common household and
common kitchen with the family of then Pradhan, however, except
vague argument, no substantial material was placed on record by
petitioner.
19. In aforesaid circumstances, even on merit, petitioner has no
case.
20. Dismissed accordingly.
(SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.)
September 23, 2026
AK
Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…